ID: 18820.jeg

Robert C. Sanders, Esq.
Director and General Counsel
Parents for Safer Air Bags
Suite 300, 1250 24th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037

Dear Mr. Sanders:

This responds to your letter of September 23, 1998 requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked about the labeling requirements for air-bag equipped vehicles which were established in a final rule published in the Federal Register (58 FR 46551) on September 2, 1993. These requirements applied to vehicles manufactured from September 1, 1994 until the present sun visor labeling requirements became effective on February 25, 1997.⁽¹⁾ The question you ask is responded to below.

By way of background information, the September 2, 1993 final rule required a warning label bearing specified information about safe conduct around air bags to be located on both sun visors. (S4.5.1(b)(1).) The rule provided further that "(n)o other information shall appear on the same side of the sun visor to which the label is affixed," and that "(e)xcept for an air bag alert label placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(c) of this standard, no other information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor." (S4.5.1(b)(2).)

You asked whether this final rule⁽²⁾ precluded automobile manufacturers from placing air bag information labels elsewhere in the vehicle (i.e., other than on the sun visor) with a text different than that of the sun visor label.

The answer is no. S4.5.1(b)(1) of Standard No. 208 specified the precise information concerning air bags that was required to be placed on the sun visor, and S4.5.1(b)(2) specified that "no other information concerning air bags or seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor." (Emphasis added.) The standard did not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from placing other accurate information concerning air bags or seat belts in locations in the vehicle other than the sun visor.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.11/12/98

1. The final rule establishing the current labeling requirements was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 60206) on November 27, 1996. The rule applied to vehicles manufactured on or after February 25, 1997. It provided that manufacturers were permitted to voluntarily substitute the new labels for the earlier labels prior to that date.

2. The agency later made minor amendments to S4.5.1(b), prior to the final rule establishing the current labeling requirements. However, these amendments do not affect the answer to your question.

ID: aiam1432

Dear Mr. Conway: This is in response to your letter of February 22, 1974, requestin information concerning three-wheel and light duty four-wheel vehicles.; As of January 1, 1974, motor vehicles of 1,000 pounds or less cur weight, other than trailers and motorcycles, became subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Currently, motorcycles are motor vehicles with motive power having seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. Any three-wheel vehicles that conform to this definition must meet all standards applicable to motorcycles. Those three-wheel vehicles that differ in some respect from the definition, must satisfy the requirements of either passenger car, truck, or multipurpose passenger vehicle standards, depending upon which are appropriate.; On November 27, 1973, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration amended 49 CFR 571.3(b), Definitions, of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, by revising the definition of 'motorcycle' (Notice enclosed). Petitions have been received in response to the final rule and are receiving careful consideration as the agency contemplates a possible further revision of the definition.; With regard to lightweight four-wheel vehicles, as of January 1, 1974 they must comply with all standards applicable to their vehicle type. There is no special category for lightweight four-wheel vehicles.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht72-1.43

DATE: 06/01/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hamilton Cosco, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 4, 1972, posing certain questions concerning paragraph S4.10 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Seating Systems." You ask "what criteria are to be used to determine whether an area is a contactable area under S4.10."

The components that would be considered contactable by the head under S4.10.1, or by the torso under S4.10.2, are any components which a child within the weight and height range for which the seat is recommended might contact in a 30 m.p.h. barrier crash, as represented by the test procedure specified in S5.1 and S5.2.

You also ask for clarification of the meaning of "rigid side" as that phrase is used in S4.10.3. As we indicated to you in our letter of February 23, 1972, manufacturers should rely on generally available definitions of "rigid" in determining whether or not components are within the term. The reference to "side" includes components placed both to the right and left, and forward of and behind the child occupant. Consequently, both an arm rest and a head rest (either separate from the back of a child seat or part of a one piece back of a child seat) could fall within the exemption of S4.10.3. The reference to "back or side" in the proposed amendment to S4.10 published September 23, 1970 (35 F.R. 14786), is intended purely as a clarification of the existing language; the main thrust of the proposed revision would be, as stated in its preamble, to eliminate the exemption in the head-contact area.

With reference to the status of the September 23 proposal, a final rule based on this notice is still under consideration and we cannot presently provide an indication as to when it may become effective.

ID: nht95-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 21, 1995

FROM: Heather Paul -- Executive Director, National Safe Kids Campaign

TO: Patricia Breslin, Ph.D. -- Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/5/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ANGELA MICKALIDE (REDBOOK 2; STD. 213; A43)

TEXT: Dear Dr. Breslin:

As you know, the National SAFE KIDS Campaign and its partners, the National Safety Council, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the State and Territorial Injury Prevention Directors Association, will be distributing approximately 38,00 0 child safety seats to families in need over the next few months.

This presents an ideal opportunity for research on the effectiveness of the child safety seat distribution process. The Campaign is submitting a written request to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for an interpretation of the Federal M otor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVqSS) 213. Specifically, the Campaign is interested in modifying the uniform child restraint registration card to collect information about recipient families' sociodemographic profile, the type of cars in which the child safety seats would typically be installed in order to address incompatibility issues, and the comprehensiveness of the educational outreach at the distribution sites (see enclosed draft).

The Campaign would require the distribution site coordinators to complete the modified child [Illegible Word] registration card with the recipient family prior to distributing the child safety seat. This would yield almost a 100% child safety seat regis tration response rate which would allow NHTSA and the manufacturer to more readily notify families about recalls. Distribution site coordinators would mail the cards directly to the manufacturer, who would then tabulate the data for the Campaign's evalu ation research purposes.

Please call me or Dr. Angela Mickalide, Program Director, as soon as possible in order to resolve this important child safety matter. Thank you in advance for your timely response to the Campaign's request for an interpretation of FMVSS 213.

(Enclosure omitted.)

ID: nht95-5.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 21, 1995

FROM: Heather Paul -- Executive Director, National Safe Kids Campaign

TO: Patricia Breslin, Ph.D. -- Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/5/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ANGELA MICKALIDE (REDBOOK 2; STD. 213; A43)

TEXT: Dear Dr. Breslin:

As you know, the National SAFE KIDS Campaign and its partners, the National Safety Council, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the State and Territorial Injury Prevention Directors Association, will be distributing approximately 38,000 child safety seats to families in need over the next few months.

This presents an ideal opportunity for research on the effectiveness of the child safety seat distribution process. The Campaign is submitting a written request to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for an interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVqSS) 213. Specifically, the Campaign is interested in modifying the uniform child restraint registration card to collect information about recipient families' sociodemographic profile, the type of cars in which the child safety seats would typically be installed in order to address incompatibility issues, and the comprehensiveness of the educational outreach at the distribution sites (see enclosed draft).

The Campaign would require the distribution site coordinators to complete the modified child [Illegible Word] registration card with the recipient family prior to distributing the child safety seat. This would yield almost a 100% child safety seat registration response rate which would allow NHTSA and the manufacturer to more readily notify families about recalls. Distribution site coordinators would mail the cards directly to the manufacturer, who would then tabulate the data for the Campaign's evaluation research purposes.

Please call me or Dr. Angela Mickalide, Program Director, as soon as possible in order to resolve this important child safety matter. Thank you in advance for your timely response to the Campaign's request for an interpretation of FMVSS 213.

(Enclosure omitted.)

ID: aiam0090

>>>*GRANT OF APPROVAL*<<< In accordance with Paragraph S3. of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 209, as amended, effective March 1, 1967, an interrupted thread belt is an approved equivalent to the belts specified in paragraph (f) of section 9.3 of Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, *Standards for Seat Belts for Use in Motor Vehicles* (15 CFR 9) (31 F.R. 11528), provided it meets all other requirements of 13 CFR 9.; Sincerely, William Haddon, Jr., M. D., Director

ID: 16035.jeg

Mr. Toshiyuki Aoki
Engineering Department
Sensor Technology Co., Ltd.
FAX: +81-299-59-6121

Dear Mr. Aoki:

This responds to your fax asking about the neck injury criteria specified in the alternative unbelted sled test requirements of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I apologize for the delay in this response.

You note that S13.2 of the standard specifies that the neck injury criteria are "measured with the six axis load cell (ref: Denton drawing C-1709) that is mounted between the bottom of the skull and the top of the neck as shown in drawing 78051-218." You state that you do not understand the neck transducer position for the Hybrid III dummy from this quoted language and ask whether it means "upper neck transducer," not "lower neck transducer."

The language quoted above does mean "upper neck transducer." The terms load cell and transducer are synonymous. The upper neck transducer is located, as specified in S13.2, between the bottom of the skull and the top of the neck, and is shown in that position on drawing 78051-218. By contrast, the lower neck transducer for the Hybrid III dummy is located between the top of the thorax and the bottom of the neck. (Our regulations do not specify use of the lower neck transducer for testing under Standard No. 208.)

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further legal questions, you may refer them to Edward Glancy of this office at (202) 366-2992. If you have any technical questions about how we use the Hybrid III dummy in our tests, you may contact Stan Backaitis of our Office of Safety Performance Standards at (202) 366-4912.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208#572
d.4/1/98

ID: aiam2331

Dear Mr. Clifton: This is in response to your letters of March 22 and June 9, 1976 concerning the classification of motor-scooters and the tires designed for them.; >>>'Motorcycle' is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as: a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the us of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.; 'Motor-driven cycle' is defined as: a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5 brake horsepower or less.<<< The category of 'motor-driven cycles' includes, but is not limited to motorized bicycles. There is no definition of 'scooter' or 'motor-scooter'. Such a vehicle is a motorcycle and, depending on the brake horsepower of its engine, may also be a motor-driven cycle. In any event, a tire for use on such a vehicle is a motorcycle tire that is subject to all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. The standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. However, your letter is being considered in the preparation of the forthcoming Federal Register notice on this subject.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 22258-4.drn

David Robertson, Manager
Environmental & Safety Engineering
Mazda North American Operations
1500 Enterprise Drive
Allen Park, MI 48101-2053





Dear Mr. Robertson:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the requirements for heating/air conditioning controls specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. In particular, you asked about the identification requirements that apply to two controls that can be rotated indefinitely to increase or decrease fan speed and temperature inside the vehicle.

Based on your letter, and the presentation of Mr. Masao Fujisaki, Overseas Certification Group, Environmental and Safety Engineering Dept., Mazda Motor Corporation, at a February 7, 2001 meeting with the agency, we understand that the two controls are located on the lowest part of a three-part control panel. The panel consists of the following:

(1) at the top, an integrated digital display,
(2) in the middle, the audio system controls, and
(3) at the bottom, the fan/temperature controls.

The digital display provides information about the audio and fan/temperature systems. Among other things, it shows fan speed and temperature. The digital display shows the fan speed by means of a right angle triangle labeled with the fan control symbol specified in Table 1 of Standard No. 101. The digital display shows temperature by means of a number followed by F, above which is the term "TEMP." We understand that the digital display is capable of providing "at least two levels of brightness."

The fan/temperature controls consist of three round dial controls, placed in a horizontal row. The dial control on the right regulates temperature. The control is labeled at the top half by the ISO symbol for temperature (a thermometer). A plus sign (+) appears to the right of the temperature symbol and a minus sign (-) appears to the left of the temperature symbol. On the lower half of the right control appears the term "AUTO", under which "A/C" appears. The temperature control is turned on (or off) by pushing on the control. A warmer temperature is provided by turning the control to the right (clockwise); a cooler temperature is provided by turning to the left (counter-clockwise).

The middle control consists of two adjoining, independent semi-circle pushbutton controls, which control the heating, cooling and defogging vents in the vehicle. The semi-circle at the top is labeled with the Table 1 symbol for the windshield defrosting and defogging system (by which air is directed towards the windshield), below which the word "Front" appears. The semi-circle at the bottom is labeled with the ISO symbol indicating upper and lower vents towards a passenger, above which the word "Mode" appears. One can tell whether a particular vent is actuated because the control stays pushed down when the vent is actuated. The windshield vent and passenger vents can either be operated independently or together.

The control on the left is the fan control. It is labeled with the fan control symbol specified in Table 1 of Standard No. 101. To the right of the fan symbol is a plus sign and to the right of the fan symbol is a minus sign. Under the fan symbol is the word "OFF." The fan control is actuated by pushing on the control. To make the fan speed faster, the control is turned to the right (clockwise); to make the fan speed slower, the control is turned to the left (counterclockwise).

On each of the three controls, all symbols (including plus and minus signs) and words are illuminated when the headlights are on.

You are interested in how the S5.2.2 requirement that identification be provided for the "extreme positions" of controls that regulate a function over a quantitative range applies to the left and right controls. Because the controls rotate indefinitely, there are no extreme positions, in the traditional sense, that can be marked. However, the driver can know when the extreme positions have been reached by means of a digital display that shows the fan speed and temperature selected. You believe, based on your reading of an interpretation letter we issued on June 8, 2000, that use of a digital display is an acceptable means to identify the "extreme positions" of controls that regulate a function over a quantitative range.

You noted, however, that the digital display in the design at issue is separated from the fan/temperature controls by the audio control portion of the panel. You asked whether this design meets the S5.2.1 requirement that identification of controls be "on or adjacent" to the control.

The issues you have raised are addressed below.

I note that S5.2.1(a) states in part:

[a]ny hand-operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated for it in column 3 of that table shall be identified by either the symbol designated in column 3 ... or the word or abbreviation shown in column 2 of that table. ... Any such control for which column 2 of Table 1 and/or column 3 of Table 1 specifies "Mfr. Option" shall be identified by the manufacturer's choice of a symbol, word or abbreviation, as indicated by that specification in column 2 and/or column 3. The identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. (Emphasis added.)

Further, S5.2.2 states in part:

Identification shall be provided for each function of any automatic vehicle speed system control and any heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. If this identification is not specified in Table 1 or Table 2, it shall be in word or symbol form unless color coding is used. If color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the color blue.

In our June 8, 2000, interpretation letter addressing the use of digital displays to identify the extreme positions of controls that regulate a function over a quantitative range, we stated that it was our opinion that the requirement to identify the extreme positions is met as long as there is a means by which the driver can know when the extreme positions have been reached. However, we did not conclude that the "means by which the driver can know when the extreme positions have been reached" (i.e., the relevant displays) must be on or adjacent to the controls. In fact, your letter is incorrect in assuming, with respect to the system that was the subject of our earlier interpretation, that the relevant displays for both the fan and the temperature control system were located immediately below the digital display. While this is correct for the fan control (the fan was controlled by one of the push button switches), our letter states that the temperature controls (the outer rings around buttons labeled "PUSH A/C") were located away from the row of push button switches.

Standard No. 101 does generally require that identification of controls be on or adjacent to the controls. Otherwise, there would be no logical connection between the identification and the control. This is why we made it clear, for the push button switches we addressed in our June 8, 2000, letter, that there needed to be close proximity between the switches and the images/identification.

For traditional controls that regulate a function over a quantitative range, e.g., dials, levers or buttons that move only within a limited range, it makes obvious sense to require identification of the extreme positions to be located on or adjacent to the controls. This is the logical way for a driver to be able to identify the extreme positions.

However, such a requirement does not necessarily make sense for new kinds of controls that regulate a function over a quantitative range, but do not have extreme positions in the traditional sense. For example, dials that can be rotated indefinitely are sometimes associated with a visual display. In a sense, the control consists of both the dial and the display. While it is obviously important that identification of the dial itself be located on or adjacent to the dial, there is no extreme position (in the traditional sense) to identify. And, whether for the system we addressed in our June 8, 2000, letter or for your system, we see no reason to interpret the standard to require the "means by which the driver can know when the extreme positions have been reached" (i.e., the relevant displays) to be on or adjacent to such dials.

We note, however, that if the relevant displays are separated from the dials, there must be sufficient independent identification for both the dial and the separate display that the driver can understand both items. Our review of your proposed design does not indicate any problem in this area. For example, the dial for the fan control is marked with the fan symbol to indicate function and (+) (-) signs to indicate how fan speed is increased and decreased, and the display for fan speed shows the fan symbol to identify function and a triangle to indicate relative speed.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:101
d.2/28/01

ID: aiam3632

Dear Mr. Kleber: This is in reply to your letter of November 15, 1982, to Mr. Fairchil of this office, asking how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration classifies the 'Trihawk' three-wheeled motor vehicle for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 e seq.) defines a motor vehicle, in pertinent part, as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways....' (1391(3)). From the brochure you enclosed, the Trihawk appears to be manufactured for use on the public roads and, hence, is subject to the Federal safety standards, and to other regulations such as those requiring notification and remedy in the event the vehicle fails to comply with any applicable safety standard or incorporates a safety-related defect (1411 et seq.).; Agency regulations (49 CFR Part 571.3(b)) define a 'motorcycle' as ' motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.' The standards applicable to 'motorcycles,' therefore, are those that the three-wheeled Trihawk must meet.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel